Kelly Block

[Saskatchewan Youth Leaders, October 25th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here today to congratulate several of my riding's truly outstanding leaders. Earlier this week, 13 grade five students from Vanscoy, Saskatchewan, learned that their hard work to make their world a better place was being recognized with a trip to WE Day in Winnipeg. The civic engagement of these girls is inspiring, and I wish them a wonderful trip to Manitoba later this month.

I would also like to express my appreciation to WestJet for making this trip possible, and for giving these remarkable students the opportunity to gather with other young Canadians who are working hard to bring about positive change, both at home and around the world.

[Record Suspension Program, October 24th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Motion No. 161, which seeks a review of the record suspension program as amended in Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, enacted by the previous Conservative government. I would like to thank the member for Saint John—Rothesay for introducing the motion and providing me the opportunity to recall some of the excellent work done in the realm of justice and law and order by the previous government.

The Safe Streets and Communities Act introduced many important and necessary changes to how our criminal justice system worked and focused on protecting victims of crime. The bill was thoroughly vetted, with over 200 hours of debate between committee and the House. By the time Bill C-10 was introduced, Conservatives had done much to reform the justice system. We passed mandatory minimum sentences for gang-related murders and drive-by shootings. We eliminated the shameful practice of giving two-for-one credit for time served in pretrial custody. We strengthened the national sex offender registry and passed legislation ensuring that drug dealers were not let out of prison after serving a mere one-sixth of their sentences, not to mention the outstanding track record our government had on crime prevention.

Bill C-10, as just one of the over 25 bills we passed to reform our Justice system, continued in the tradition of those Conservative measures to crack down on crime by legislating many new and improved measures. Some of those measures included increasing the penalties for sexual offences against children. lt targeted organized drug crime by toughening sentences for narcotics trafficking. lt protected foreign workers who were at risk of becoming victims of human trafficking or exploitation. Notably, Bill C-10 enacted the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, which allowed the victims of terror attacks to sue both the individual responsible and those who supported that individual. lt granted broader leeway for the Minister of Public Safety to decide if someone who committed crimes overseas, including acts of terror, should be allowed to come back to Canada.

These are points of particular interest now as a comparison to the Liberal government's record on terrorists, their victims and the victims of crime overall. The Liberal government has sought to bring ISIS fighters back into Canada. The Liberals willingly wrote a cheque for $10.5 million to convicted terrorist Omar Khadr. Where is the respect for the victims of terrorist attacks? Where is the respect for their families, for Tabitha Speer?

Compare and contrast the record of the previous Conservative government to the Liberal government on any of these issues and it quickly becomes clear that the previous Conservative government was focused squarely on protecting the rights of victims, while the Liberal government is focused on protecting the rights of criminals. I understand this is a bold statement to make, but I have a hard time seeing the changes the government is making to our justice system in any other way. While the previous Conservative government ensured that criminals faced the consequences of their actions, the Liberal government has introduced Bill C-75, a bill that opens the door to shockingly lenient sentences for crimes such as abducting children, advocating genocide, impaired driving causing bodily harm and even engaging in terrorist activities.

I am bringing these issues into focus in this debate today to make a point. The Liberal government has an appalling track record on this file. It has continually weakened the protections for victims of crime, while making life easier for criminals. I believe it is crucial to remember the government's record while discussing the question underlined in the motion.

There are certain individuals who would be greatly pleased to use this motion as an opportunity to call for the wholesale repeal of Bill C-10. Engaging in that discussion would be a mistake. I am always willing to discuss and debate the merits of particular and fine points of the legislative track record of our former government; however, Bill C-10 was clearly a step in the right direction in that it placed the emphasis on the role of the victim in our justice system and ensured that criminals faced the consequences for their actions.

Let me be clear. I believe it is important to review the impacts of changes to a law. ln fact, I welcome reviews of legislation, as too often governments of all stripes pass laws with the very best of intentions, which may result in an end very different than what the government had in mind.

Given the bill became law nearly six years ago, it may be a good idea to ensure that the changes made to the record suspension program are accomplishing that which they were intended to do. ln fact, my hon. colleague for Saint John—Rothesay states it very clearly in the early part of the motion before us today, which reads:

That the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security be instructed to undertake a study of the Record Suspension Program to: (a) examine the impact of a record suspension to help those with a criminal record reintegrate into society;

There is the line “reintegrate into society”.

The ideal outcome of a prison sentence is not merely for offenders to face the consequences of their bad actions, but for them to reform into productive members of society. However, there must be a clear litmus test to ensure offenders have indeed reformed their ways.

We have a system of criminal records to protect citizens from the possibility of becoming unwitting victims of a previous offender. However, in a just society, a society founded on Judeo-Christian principles, there ought to be an opportunity for redemption. This is why the record suspension program exists, to give another chance to those who have proven themselves reformed.

ln order to access this program, however, the litmus test I alluded to earlier must be met. Bill C-10 set the standard as 10 years lived crime-free for serious crimes or five years for summary offences. lt also disqualified those who proved themselves too dangerous, by including those convicted of sexual offences against children and those convicted of three indictable offences, from ever being eligible to apply. Bill C-10 ensured that offenders would pay their own way through this system and increased the record suspension application fee to reflect that belief.

ln crafting the bill, the previous government believed that this standard would best protect the community, respect the rights of victims and provide those who had proven themselves deserving a second opportunity. Now, perhaps enough time has passed for the results of the these changes to be reviewed.

I am sure that all of us in this place wish to ensure that the process of the record suspension program is not hindering long-rehabilitated individuals from becoming productive members of society. However, let me again state the importance of retaining the focus on this aspect of Bill C-10. The Safe Streets and Communities Act placed the focus squarely on the rights of victims.

Listening to those who wish to repeal the bill would be a step backward for our justice system. I remain cautiously optimistic that the motion before us today will provide the opportunity to further strengthen our justice system.

[Canada Labour Code, October 17th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the question as well as for the very good work he has done in his role as our shadow minister and on the committee that was reviewing this bill.

I think it behooves the Parliament of Canada, and us as elected representatives, to ensure that we are setting the bar high, that we are actually reaching that bar, and that we are providing a good example for others when they look to deal with these sorts of issues in their own workplaces. I believe this bill addresses the issue with the degree of seriousness it deserves. I hope we follow through and that our actions will follow our words.

[Canada Labour Code, October 17th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, we too have organizations within our province, within my riding, that seek to address issues of the violence women experience.

Both this place and the other place have worked together to create a bill that would address this issue with the degree of seriousness it deserves. I believe it will provide confidence to Canadians at large.

[Canada Labour Code, October 17th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to rise today to speak to the motion by the government in response to the Senate's amendments to Bill C-65.

I am pleased to see that the government took a judicious view of the amendments, accepting those that strengthened the bill in combatting harassment and violence in federally regulated workplaces, while respectfully declining those that would have caused the bill to be imbalanced or that could be better dealt with through regulations. The government's thoughtful review of the amendments proposed by the other place have ensured that I will be supporting its response.

Recently, I spoke out here in the chamber against violence in our political discourse, stating that it had no place in Canadian society. I feel just as strongly about violence and harassment in our workplaces. They have no place in Canadian society or within Parliament. We have been working in recent years to move toward addressing these issues with the gravity they deserve.

The Conservative Party has a long and proud tradition of standing up for the rights of victims of crime. Our previous Conservative government passed the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, ensuring that the most vulnerable Canadians could still receive justice. I am happy to see that Bill C-65 follows along that same path set by the previous government, proposing legislation that seeks to prevent incidents of harassment and violence and ensure additional protections for parliamentary staff.

In some ways, this proposed act would continue the work that I and other members of Parliament undertook in the previous parliament through the all-party subcommittee on a code of conduct for members. In that subcommittee, we struggled with the balance between parliamentary privilege and responsibility, between holding to account and respecting privacy, and between the rights of the accuser and the rights of the accused. Due to my time on that subcommittee, I understand the complexity of these questions.

For most workplaces, these issues are difficult enough. Clearly, Parliament is far from a typical workplace. Our workplace is unique. As such, it can be ripe for abuse, and for far too long, victims of harassment and violence have felt that they had no recourse. The bill before us seeks to rectify this problem and would provide legal recourse and protection to MPs' staff as well as to other victims.

Recent events have made it clear that a rigorous process needs to be in place to ensure that all are treated equally. Our democratic system of laws demands that justice be blindly executed and that all face consequences for their actions, whether that person be the pauper or the prince. Is this currently the case? If I may make an observation about the party across the floor, it does not appear to be.

I fear that the Liberal Party has become the party of virtue signalling. The Liberals will readily say the right words, or more often, the words that sound nice in theory but fail in reality. Their actions do not match their platitudes. They are willing to create a rule and to then apply it unequally, as the need may be. At times, they have gone so far as to ignore their own rules, as was a recent case with the Prime Minister. In that case, there was one set of rules for the members of his caucus when it came to accusations of harassment and another for him. That is far from fair, far from feminist and far from just.

I know that I am not alone in wanting better from those in power. It is for this reason that I welcome the clarity Bill C-65 would bring to this process. No one, no matter who they are, should ever escape the consequences of their actions because of the title they bear.

Bill C-65 would ensure that every victim would be given due process and that the rights of the accused would be protected. Canadians want a fair process free from interference, free of innuendo and blind to power. I am happy to see that all parties worked together to ensure that this would be the case by amending the bill in committee.

Prior to the amendments, as my colleague, the member for Lethbridge, pointed out in her remarks at second reading, the bill granted a great deal of power to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour. Those powers included the ability to choose when and if to begin an investigation.

We could see that this was an issue. Not only must investigations be free from political interference, they must be free from the appearance of political interference. Canadians must be completely confident that justice is served to all, or our justice system, as a whole, loses legitimacy.

Other powers originally granted to the minister included the power to subpoena personal and professional material in the offices of any member of Parliament under investigation. This could have included confidential political documents regarding internal party policy discussions. It is not hard to see how these powers could be misused.

We can all agree that allegations of harassment are sensitive and require the confidence of all participants in the process. Both accuser and accused must believe that the highest priority of the investigation is to find the truth.

The placement of so much power over an investigation in the hands of a political operative weakened the bill greatly. The victim's voice would be drowned out in political debates. I am pleased to see that the committee worked together to address this very serious concern. The power would no longer be in the hands of the minister but would be in the hands of the deputy minister, a non-partisan civil servant. I believe that this change would ensure the integrity of not only the investigation process but of our political process as well.

The bill would apply not only to Parliament Hill but to all federally regulated workplaces. I am pleased to see that the government accepted an amendment from the other place that would ensure that the person to whom complaints would be made would be required to have proper training, knowledge and experience in dealing with harassment. The amendment would give additional strength to the enforcement of the bill, as every federal employee would have an expert to turn to when faced with violence or harassment.

Much of the conversation around this act has focused on the after-effects of harassment and violence, or the allegations thereof. However, I am also pleased to see that an amendment was accepted during the committee stage to add mandatory sexual harassment training. The enactment of this training moves beyond reactive responses to harassment and instead seeks to prevent harassment from taking place in the first place.

I would once again like to congratulate my colleagues in this place and the other place for all the work they have done to ensure that Bill C-65 would be able to combat workplace violence and harassment effectively. I will be supporting the government's response to the amendments, and I look forward to seeing this bill become law.

[Freedom of Speech, October 15th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the great prime minister John Diefenbaker famously said, “I am a Canadian...free to speak without fear...free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong.” This freedom is foundational to our society. It is the right on which all other rights depend.

I was shocked and disturbed to see two recent videos of young women here in Canada violently assaulted for peacefully expressing their pro-life beliefs.

For the sake of our democracy we must be able to speak our minds and express our personal convictions about difficult and controversial subjects without fear of violence and with a willingness to listen and debate peacefully.

If we allow this politically motivated violence to go unchallenged, we delegitimize our society. I condemn these attacks and call on all members in this place to do the same and stand up for the rights of Canadians to freely express their deeply held convictions.

[Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, October 15th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Motion No. 177, a private member's motion put forward by the member for Kelowna—Lake Country. I would like to thank the member for highlighting the issues and challenges faced by flight schools in Canada through this motion.

There are a number of excellent flight schools in Saskatchewan. I have had the opportunity to meet with instructors from one in particular, Apex Aviation in Saskatoon, to hear first-hand about the issues it is facing as an aviation training company.

First, I would like to reflect on the specifics of the motion, as well as the importance of flight schools.

The quality of aviation education is fundamental to the safety of the air industry in Canada. The safety record of the Canadian aviation industry is paramount not only to government, but also to those who work in the industry, especially the pilots and attendants.

As the motion reflects, tied to the quality of the education is the infrastructure and environment in which these schools operate. The saying goes that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Equally, the quality of flight education in Canada will only be good if all the components supporting that education are good.

One specific directive the motion outlines is to call on the transportation, infrastructure and communities committee to study “the challenges that flight schools are facing in providing trained pilots to industry”. Of particular interest to me will be to understand what specific challenges flight schools are facing that are created by the federal government. What is the Government of Canada doing or not doing that is perhaps creating those challenges?

Should the motion pass and this matter be studied by the committee, one recent development, which I suspect is a challenge and which I plan to delve into, will be how the Liberal government's carbon tax has impacted flight schools and the cost of pilot education in Canada. As we all know, but only some of us admit, the Liberal carbon tax is a tax on everything. In fact, the government has indirectly acknowledged the negative impact its carbon tax will have on Canada's air industry.

This past summer, at the request of the three territorial governments and northern air operators, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the Minister of Finance agreed to exempt aviation fuel used in Canada's three northern territories. While this is an important first step, it is my hope they would also remove this tax on everything from everything else. However, my point here is that in providing this exemption, these ministers are acknowledging the harmful impact of their carbon tax.

When a government imposes a new tax, costs for consumers inevitably go up. This means that a student wanting to obtain his or her pilot licence will ultimately bear the cost of this extra expense.

As part of my intervention should the motion get to committee, I look forward to asking flight school operators whether they would see an exemption from the carbon tax in flight training as a positive step.

I would like to go back to what I consider the broader issue facing the Canadian aviation industry, which is very much connected to the challenges that flight schools are facing. Again, this is the issue of a commercial pilot shortage in Canada.

Industry experts suggest there could be a shortage of 3,000 pilots by 2025. There is not, in my opinion, one simple solution for this problem. The federal government needs to look at its tool box to see if there are policies it can implement, or stop implementing as in the case of the carbon tax, that would help alleviate the problem. Of course, matters of safety should never be compromised as this must be the government's primary concern.

On the private sector side, the industry itself should look at what it can do to help promote commercial flying as a career option. One place to start could be putting more emphasis on introducing the idea of becoming a pilot to high school and college students.

Additionally, industry should also look at what can be done to improve a pilot's work-life balance. Often pilots' schedules begin and end at strange hours, cause pilots to be away from home for extended periods of time, as well as work over weekends and holidays.

While in some cases these challenges might simply be the nature of the industry or be necessary due to the region in which an airline operates, nonetheless they can be a factor that a prospective pilot will consider. If they can be mitigated by the airline or the industry, they should be looked at.

One area in which airlines and flight schools and perhaps the federal government could partner would be to review the costs and length of time it takes for a new pilot to become qualified. I want to stress that in no way am I suggesting that the safety or the quality of the training should be compromised. When I read that it can cost up to $75,000 for a pilot to reach a level of training in order to be employed as a commercial pilot, I can only imagine that this is a daunting sum for a prospective student considering this as a career path.

1 wonder whether airlines and flight schools could, together with students, develop a partnership in order to: first, alleviate some of the financial risk and burden for the student; second, provide a guaranteed pool of qualified pilots for airlines; and finally, provide a steady flow of students to the flight schools. It should be recognized that this issue is not specific to Canada or even North America. The issue of pilot shortages is one that the airline industry is facing worldwide.

However, coming back to the motion before us, in conclusion, I want to indicate to the member for Kelowna—Lake Country that it is my intention to support the motion. I do wish that the wording of the motion would have been more specific to studying the issue of pilot shortages and then included the need to study flight schools as a component of that overarching study.

However, I do believe that, should the motion pass as is, the study that the committee will undertake will be a positive step in identifying solutions for our flight schools and more broadly the industry here in Canada.

[Divorce Act, October 4th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am not here to rebut that. It is simply something I mentioned that I would like to see discussed. If there are those concerns and reasons for why the legislation does not include that, I would certainly hope there would be robust discussion around that. The Conservatives have always stood up for the safety and well-being of children and families. Therefore, I would suggest that a good discussion around the issue should be held when the committee studies it.

[Divorce Act, October 4th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my remarks, I know there is significant research within the social sciences that suggests that equal shared parenting is the best outcome for children involved in a divorce. I think that we would all agree that parents having equal access to their children would be in their best interest.

However, I also said that I fully recognized that this may not always be in the best interest of the child or children. That was why I suggested it would have to be rebuttable. This is one of the concerns I raised and I raised it to highlight an issue that I feel the justice committee could look at more closely during its deliberations.

[Divorce Act, October 4th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, as many other colleagues have said already today, I am not a lawyer and I certainly appreciate the work that has been done by the members of the justice committee to date and by the Minister of Justice in presenting the bill. I know that one of the stated intentions of the bill is to help reduce child poverty by providing more tools to establish and enforce child support, so I hope this is a main point of discussion during the committee's debate on the bill.